Behind the scenes: Garry Winogrand at work

Filmed as part of a larger documentary, Michael Engler’s 'Contemporary Photography in the USA' features photographer Garry Winogrand just two years before his death in 1984 at the age of 56. Although the Bronx-born photographer is often referred to as a street photographer - perhaps one of the best of his generation - he hated the expression, explaining in the video 'I think it's a stupid term. Street photographer. It doesn’t tell you anything about the photographer or [the] work.'

Photographing people on the street in the 1960s wasn't as common as it is today, of course, and Winogrand was as fearless as they come. Once he spied someone he wanted to photograph, within seconds he'd dart over to the person, bring his Leica's viewfinder up to his eye, snap the shutter and be on the lookout for his next subject.

In the video, you can see Winogrand's eyes and body in constant motion, scanning the passersby and frequently darting away from the filmmaker mid-sentence to take a photograph.

At that rate, we can only imagine how many rolls of 35mm film this prolific shooter cranked through his camera in a day. When he passed away, it's reported that he left behind several hundred thousand images, including a few thousand unprocessed rolls of film. But his exhibitions, archives and books have left us with enough images to see life through his eyes.

Winogrand claimed that he didn't think of pictures when he snapped the shutter. Rather, he said, 'When I photograph, I see life; that’s all there is in my viewfinder.'

How has street photography changed since Winogrand - or has it? Would you feel comfortable adopting his in-your-face style?

Comments

Nice to see how others, in this case Winogrand, is doing street photography. I love to do it also, perhaps nice for you to see those pictures.By the way, will everyone be a street photographer when Google glass become more common?http://www.pictureplaza.nl/barend/amsterdam/

Candid family shots do have "clout." Photograph Aunt Bessie or Billy Bob without permission, and you get a painful clouting. The stealth shooter in public can either pretend to be making a phonecall, or be a fast runner.

Much of Sally Mann's earlier work also featured her children. Children as subject matter is not is not a problem in the art world. The truth is most images of children may be charming and perhaps interesting photographs visually but rarely embody ideas of any depth, which is more often requisite for serious and acknowledged art.

It's interesting that Winogrand disliked the term "street photographer". In the recent interview featured on dpreview (31 Jan) with Don McCullin he said he did not like the term "war photographer" and didn't want to be remembered as that.

If you take candid photos of people, you should be respectful. You can see that in Winogrand's work. Unfortunately, in my country and without debate, street photography is effectively banned:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures

It is in France as well, but a few years ago a learned judge ruled that the photographer's freedom of expression took precedence over the individual's copyright of his own image, if the pictures taken did not portray the subject in such a way as to ridicule or damage him in any other way. In other words, pics of Hortense shovelling in a gallon of cassoulet are probably OK, but pics of her picking her nose with the cutlery aren't.

As already mentioned, could you get away with photographing people in that manner today?The answer is yes, in a city like New York or as seen in the film around the Los Angeles/Hollywood area because of it being a tourist attraction. Try doing it in your local town and see what kind of reaction you get. Of course it's all down to the way you approach the subject and it's also a question about confidence but even so, today it's become harder to go about taking pictures without someone causing a fuss and calling the police.

Like you said, depends on where you are. Big city folks are used to "weirdos" so you can get away with it, but not so much in upper middleclass suburbs. I got accosted by security guards taking photos of people in an high-end shopping center in a suburb.

I think this is more common. Maybe city folks in dense areas are also more focused on just getting from A to B by their routine, whereas with more space photographers lifting a camera stand out.

I've also been approached by security in a shopping centre here in the UK. I was just taking general photos not necessarily of people (testing out a new lens as it happened). While it's a right to take photos in a public place, most shopping centres are privately owned and they are within their rights to ask you to stop, although they still can't confiscate your equipment or ask you to delete anything.

Yes, a great photog, one of those that were my "teachers" in the art of seeing the world around with a photog's eye. Interesting that at least three others were also in the list at the end, Frank, Ralph Gibson and Joel Meyerowitz. I have a book by Diane Arbus, but I find her work really depressing and not something I'd ever do. Of course S. Shore is such a great perfectionist, but also a bit out of my radar as style. Very interesting piece. It reminds me of one I saw of Cartier-Bresson at the HCB foundation in Paris, that shows his very weird style of shooting, at the tip of his toes, looking very shy, not like GW. Thanks for the link, could we see the other parts?

There is very little relationship between obesity and mortality. What little there is is very likely the result that obesity is correlated with low socio-economic status, which has a powerful effect on mortality. The link to the NIC cites only one study (which would be worthliess without strong corroboration) that 'suggests' such small increases in risk that they are barely statistical noise.

Gary was my first photo teacher at the University of Texas at Austin back in the late 70's, maybe 1980. He was a great teacher, introducing students to a vast spectrum of photographic styles and photographers from Diane Arbus to Ansel Adams to Andre Kertesz to Edward Weston and much, much more.

He actually let students into the darkroom when he was souping film and printing so we would get a first-hand view on "how it was done." Great guy who gave me one of my favorites quotes and words to live by, "I don't do nothing for nothing."

I've been a photojournalist for 30 years and still love my job. Gary's lessons were some of the best! ;)

Well, the issue isn't whether he did. That is not in dispute. He was a prolific photographer.

The question is how good an artist is he really? How do his best images stack up against the best street photographers of all time and the other best photographers of his generation.

Do his images have psychological depth. No. Never, in fact.Do they have thoughtful, reflective and contemplative themes. No. Never.Does he show deep insight into human interaction. No again.Do we discover anything in his images that we did not know before about anything but photography. Nope. He did not care about anything else.So his images are about photography, as he himself says. Well, he does have something to say there. But we'd still have a pretty good idea of what photography is, if he had never lifted a camera.

He was a prolific shooter but all of your other definitive statements are your opinion. Mine is of the opposite. I've seen examples of everything that you claim is lacking in Garry's work. I challenge you to view some contact sheets from some of your favorite photographers. I think you might find that their approach to taking photos isn't as masterful and inspired as you feel it is.

@fad: One cursory glance at your website and I see everything you fault Winogrand for on an even larger scale. Your images are nothing more than snapshots. I saw not one image of yours that even came close to being as good as the worst Winogrand photo I've ever seen.

You seem to have a strong opinion about what photography should be, but for some reason you lack the ability to take those ideas and translate them into great works of art.

Even with the "protection" of the film crew, you can see a reserve in the way he constantly looks away from his subjects, or constantly looks at the camera when he really doesn't have too as if to say to the subject, "I'm really not getting in your face." IT's his way of trying to not appear threatening to his subjects. He apparently got use to the antipathy between subjects and street photographers. But the social interactions of trying to project himself as non-threatening still operate as can be seen with these "tics".

I know a lot of people here like that sort of thing ('street shooting')...but, well....rather than cause a stir, I'll just say it's not my thing. I enjoy shooting building and the city as a whole (when I'm actually in one), but rarely do I focus on people unless something extraordinary is going on. Otherwise I'm content to let people live their lives and not have to worry about me posting photos of them online. I've seen some people do it in a tasteful way though...that style of shooting I mean.

In this clip he's getting a lot of protection from the movie maker. When on his own he's more vulnerable, but as said, that was another time. It will depend where you are but aggression due to the "you lookin' at me" factor is something to be aware of now days. Photographically he makes the comment that his viewfinder just quickly sets the limits to the composition. He's not likely to whine about resolution, softness, etc as is so often read today in camera tests.

Depends where. New York? Probably not. NYPD is too overbearing. Chicago, maybe, if you can get past the general reserve of people when not drunk, and you will get more friendly interest than hassle from the police. San Francisco, getting too gentrified, there's a distance about the place now. LA, I have no idea, I've never been there, but I get more and more curious to go.

You'll notice I haven't said anything about culture. I don't think it has changed as much as people think except, and this is crucial, that more people are out there doing this, not less, and it fades into the background more as a consequence. And perhaps in many contexts that offsets what social distance has crept into the culture

Great images by Winogrand and a very interesting document of the times. Winogrand's birdlike restlessness was striking, his hands getting the camera ready for the next shot and the next, his eyes scanning the comings and goings, and the modest size of the Leica, and how image sharpness is often of little importance when the content is compelling. Also enjoyed the voice-over, at times straight out of the Twilight Zone: "Gary Winogrand shoots photos as if he wanted to absorb reality within himself."

Winogrand is widely acknowledged and appreciated as one of the greats of this type of photography - and deservedly so. Compare the weird tickish movement of camera to eye and back (the camera barely stopping at his eye) and the elegance of his compositions. It is a bit of a painful bottled phrase to say someone has a good eye, but here is a wonderful example of someone who did. Of course taking as many images as he did helped, I'm sure. But, no doubt, his processing/anticipation of what potentially would resonant visually or otherwise be compelling was special. And, notice the whole time that the gear and technical regard for exposure are ultimately subservient to some greater content. He says of photography: "it is the closest I get to not existing".

"Compare the weird tickish movement of camera to eye and back (the camera barely stopping at his eye) and the elegance of his compositions."Exactly!And I think the reason is;he was taking the photos in his mind before he was taking them actually.